Chetan Jangid vs Laxmi Narayan

Mohammad Rafiq, J—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant Chetan Jangid challenging judgment dated 02.05.2015 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(for short ''the Appellate Rent Tribunal'') by which while reversing the judgment of Rent Tribunal, Jaipur(for short ''the Rent Tribunal'') dated 07.12.2010, allowed the appeal as well as eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord and directed eviction of the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case, as evident from the pleadings of the parties, are that the premise/shop in question was let out to the petitioner by Late Smt. Mangi Devi, mother of the respondent-landlord on 01.01.1983 on monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. After the death of Smt. Mangi Devi, according to her legal heirs, properties were partitioned and the shop/premise in question came to the share of the respondent-Laxmi Narayan. The petitioner did not make payment of the rent from 01.01.2003 till 03.01.2006. The landlord has a small grocery shop adjoining the shop in question and also running a flour mill. The said shops were insufficient for his needs and his business was adversely affected and he was facing difficulty in earning his livelihood. The respondent-landlord wanted to merge the let out shop with the shop in his possession to build a big showroom wherein he would run General Provision Store. The shop in question was needed for his bonafide and reasonable necessity. In these circumstances, the respondent-landlord filed eviction petition before the Rent Tribunal. At the time of filing eviction petition payable rent was Rs. 421/- per month. The petitioner contested the eviction petition by filing reply wherein he pleaded that the need of the respondent-landlord was not bonafide and reasonable. Measurement of the shop has not been given. In fact, the landlord has got two shops and he is already running his business from these two shops. He has deliberately and intentionally concealed the length and width of the shops and also concealed the fact that he was running two shops and not one shop. The landlord has not come with clean hands before the Court and tried to mislead the Court, therefore, the eviction petition be dismissed.

Mr. S.R. Surana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant has argued that the judgment passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal was based on misreading of evidence of P.W.4, Ranjeet Agarwal viz-a-viz the petition filed by the landlord mentioning therein that there is only one shop. It is argued that when there is no pleading of the respondent about two shops in his possession, then adverse inference under Section 114-G of the Evidence Act ought to have been drawn against him. He concealed this information from the Court to mislead it. Assertion of the landlord that he received the shop in question in partition has not been substantiated by producing any partition deed between the parties. There is no documentary evidence, nor any plan has been submitted giving the dimension of the property. Admittedly, apart from the shops, the landlord has also got a godown behind the shop. He can demolish the wall dividing the shop and godown to extend the shop and satisfy his need, if at all any. Reference is made to statement of P.W.4, Ranjeet Agarwal, who admitted measurement of the shop. He further admitted that area of flour mill shop was 21 ft. x 6 ft. and second shop was 21 ft. x 8.4 ft. Later on, in cross-examination he admitted that first shop was actually 11 ft. long and 8 ft. wide and second shop was 5 ft. long and 10 ft. wide and total measurement of both the shops was 16 ft. x 18 ft. These two shops, if added to the godown already in possession of the respondent-landlord, would be more than sufficient for the needs of the landlord.

It is argued that the Appellate Rent Tribunal ought not to have disturbed finding of the Rent Tribunal unless there were any compelling reasons. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Rent Tribunal was very limited. The landlord did not submit any site plan or the map. He did not give any monthly income to show that his business was adversely affected. The Appellate Rent Tribunal also failed to appreciate that the landlord has not stated in his statement that he was putting the articles outside the shop for the purpose of exhibition and encroaching upon the government land. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad and Others, (2001) 10 JT 426 : (2003) 9 SCC 151 ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and Others, (2014) 2 AD 44 : AIR 2014 SC 937 : (2014) AIRSCW 580 : (2014) 1 SCALE 126 : (2014) 2 SCC 269 ; M.C.D. Vs. State of Delhi and Another, AIR 2005 SC 2658 : (2005) CriLJ 3077 : (2005) 11 JT 106 : (2005) 4 SCC 605 : (2005) 3 SCR 1010 : (2005) AIRSCW 2882 : (2005) 4 Supreme 240 and decision of this Court in Omprakash Har Narain and Sons and Others Vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., (2002) 4 WLC 516 : (2002) 5 WLN 636 .

Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly allowed appeal as also eviction petition of the respondent-landlord and directed eviction of the petitioner-tenant. The rented shop was required by the respondent-landlord for expansion of his shop. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has rightly recorded finding with regard to bonafide and reasonable necessity of the respondent-landlord. It is submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or business purposes and has complete freedom in the matter. He has, therefore, prayed that this writ petition has no force and the same may be dismissed accordingly. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co., AIR 2000 SC 534 : (2000) 1 JT 61 : (2000) 1 SCALE 49(2) : (2000) 1 SCALE 49 : (2000) 1 SCC 679 : (2000) 1 SCR 77 : (2000) AIRSCW 66 : (2000) 1 Supreme 48 ; Siddalingamma and Another Vs. Mamtha Shenoy, AIR 2001 SC 2896 : (2001) 9 JT 268 : (2001) 7 SCALE 345 : (2001) 8 SCC 561 : (2001) AIRSCW 4345 : (2001) 7 Supreme 870 ; decision rendered by this Court in Subhash Chandra v. Murari Lal, 2012 WLC(Raj.) UC 46 and Laxmi Hardware Store Vs. Shri Madhusudan and Others, (2009) 1 RLW 90 .

I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

The Rent Tribunal did not find bonafide reasonable necessity of the respondent-landlord proved and held that while in pleadings he set up a case that he has one shop but in evidence it was discovered that he has two shops, out of which one was bigger and another was smaller. In his statement, he has mentioned that both the shops were small in size. The Rent Tribunal, therefore, held that statement of the landlord that he wanted the shop let out to the tenant was contradictory. It also became evident from the evidence that the landlord has his own house behind the shop in question and also has a godown. The Rent Tribunal therefore held that case set up by the respondent-landlord that he had to keep his goods on the road side in front of the shop was also contradictory because he had enough space to keep the goods. He besides two shops was also having a godown at the back side of the shop.

The Appellate Rent Tribunal has referred to statement of P.W. 1, Laxmi Narayan, landlord, who stated that he has small grocery shop and one flour mill and he wanted to demolish the wall dividing his shop and the shop let out to the tenant so as to make a big showroom. Reference is also made to his cross examination where he said that after the death of his mother, he, in family partition, received 2 1/2 shops and four rooms for the purpose of residence and godown. The Appellate Rent Tribunal has also noted statement of D.W. 1, Chetan Jangid, tenant who disputed bonafide reasonable necessity of the landlord and assailed that already he has two shops, in one of which he is running grocery shop and in another a flour mill and admitted that in Exhibit A-12 the goods placed outside the shop were of the landlord. He denied for want of knowledge that whether landlord had any other shop or not but maintained that the landlord can make a big showroom by merging the shop let out to him with 1 and 1/2 shop owned by him. He also admitted that the landlord was residing behind the shops in question. Similar statement was of D.W.2, Gautam. The Appellate Rent Tribunal therefore held that statement of D.W.2 was corroborating the statement of D.W.1, Chetan Jangid that the landlord has to keep his goods outside the shop on the road and that the landlord was running a grocery shop in the name and style of Kanhaiya Provision Store and Flour Mill in 1 and 1/2 shop. Exhibit A-11, A-12, A-13 and A-15 also proved that the landlord has to keep many of his goods outside the shop as the size of the shop is not sufficient for his need. The Appellate Rent Tribunal did not accept contention that the landlord could keep his goods in the godown rather than on the road outside the shop by observing that such goods were meant for sale in the course of the day and the godown could be used only for storage and not for the purpose of display and if the landlord keeps all these goods in the godown, he would face immense inconvenience. Every time when customer demands the good, he would have to leave his shop and go to godown, which is far behind and come back. The Appellate Rent Tribunal held that the requirement of the landlord was not artificial or mere desire and the two shops, which were presently in possession of the landlord were not sufficient for his needs. The Appellate Rent Tribunal relying upon the decision reported in 1999(2) RCR 229 held that the landlord is the best judge of his own needs.

The Supreme Court in the case of Ragavendra Kumar (supra) has held that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or business purposes and has complete freedom in the matter. In that case, the landlord in his evidence stated that he owned several other shops and houses, but they were not vacant and also suit premises were suitable for the proposed business. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that he being best judge of his requirement had got complete freedom in the matter.

The Supreme Court in Siddalingamma & Another(supra), while dealing with concept of bonafide requirement of the landlord, has held that concept of bonafide requirement of landlord requires practical approach instructed by realities of life and the Court must guard against approach which is too liberal, too conservative or pedantic. The Apex Court has further held that the law does not demand that landlord be prevented from living in comfort in his own house and be forced to live in inadequate premises in order that tenant''s occupancy of rented premises may be protected.

Submission that the landlord has made concealment cannot be accepted because total plot size of the plot of the landlord is said to be 30 ft. x 60 ft. One shop that was in possession of the landlord in which he was running grocery shop is in the size of 8 ft. x 11 ft. and another small shop, in which he was running flour mill, is of the size of 5 ft. x 11. Even the two shops are merged, their size would be 13 ft. x 11 ft. which as per the requirement of the landlord was insufficient. It is for this purpose that the landlord wants another shop let out to the petitioner, size of which is 8 ft. x 11 ft. Merger of three shops would make it a big showroom in the size of 21 ft. x 11 ft. Residential house of the respondent landlord had only three rooms and one godown. The petitioner-tenant cannot insist that the petitioner should demolish the wall behind his shops to merge the part of the residential house or godown which was situated further behind to make a big showroom rather having demanded possession of the shop let out to the tenant. In view of the settled proposition of law that the landlord is the best judge of his needs, the petitioner-tenant cannot decide bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord.

In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.